Ben Stein Calls Obama-Appointed Judges “Dictators in Black Robes”

Speaking Saturday evening with Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro, actor and conservative commentator Ben Stein argued that the recent judicial rulings against President Donald Trump’s second immigration moratorium were a clear-cut sign that the judicial branch of the federal government had acquired far too much power.

Though two judges ruled against the executive order last week, the “Ferris Bueller” star and former White House speechwriter focused his ire primarily on Hawaii-based U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson, who he said had based his ruling on feelings rather than logic and reason.

Specifically, the judge, who reportedly was a law school classmate of former President Barack Obama, argued that because had Trump allegedly made offensive remarks about Muslims while on the campaign trail last year, he had to grant constitutional rights to foreigners living in jihad-troubled countries.

“This judge suddenly came out of nowhere … and he says, ‘No, I have authority over everything. It’s up to me. Forget what the Congress did. Forget the Constitution. I’m in charge,’” Stein said. “Now this is a very bad situation in which any law can be struck down by even the most trivial district court judge.”

“And really, the judges have become the dictators in America,” he continued. “We have essentially dictators in black robes now telling the American people, ‘Your votes don’t matter. Congress’ votes don’t matter. I’m in charge.’”

The truth was that Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang deserved the same criticism Stein leveled at Watson.

As noted by USA Today, Judge Chuang “determined that Trump’s executive order was ‘the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban’ and also pointed to comments made by Trump throughout his campaign.”

He basically made the same patently false argument Watson did. They were two peas in a pod of judicial overreach. Or, as Stein would say, they were “dictators in black robes.”

And as pointed out by The Atlantic, which is hardly a conservative magazine, their rulings created a dangerous new precedent that “asserts a new power to disregard formal law if the president’s words create a basis for mistrusting his motives.”